The Guardian’s article on the West Indies’s victory over the England to hoist the T-20 cricket cup really pisses me off. Nay, no cliché description, it speaks to me of journalist’s bias which obviously is not hidden in that article written from a red and blue ‘loyalist’ perspective. Would a West Indian have written a similar article about our defeat?
The article said: “England were forced to defend a total (155 for nine) that Eoin Morgan described as 40 runs short.”
Is it that the boys from the colonies were playing the masters? I ask that because the language suggested to me that England controlled the game, their colonies were fielding and bowling so everything was at England’s command.
If that wasn’t the tone why was there no credit or even a negative comment about the quality of bowling or fielding? The Englishmen were playing with themselves?
Now compare this remark chosen from Morgan’s interview. “… we did extremely well with the ball. At no stage did the West Indies get anywhere near where they wanted.”
So they resisted us, huh… let’s move on.
Then this! England defended that ‘40-run-short total’ “so tenaciously that, when Ben Stokes ran in to bowl the last over, West Indies needed 19 runs to win.” Boy, England is the bosses and the WI are the horses waiting until they pull their reins or slip at pulling it? Cha man!!
So after all the apologetic and sympathetic language on one side what did the article say about the West Indies. Who … West Indies? Nay, let’s turn on Marlon Samuels, how dare him to feel hurt or angry about sledging?
“Samuels … was not in a mood to bury any hatchets or walk off graciously … he did not have much sympathy for Stokes.” Stokes’ mouth ‘din have no cover’ when he was talking trash so why is it Samuels, who is taunted by …; badmouthed by Warne; and is part of a team castigated as lacking brains and so on, expected to have the self-control of Jesus. It would have be great if he did, but Samuels is fallible man.
He said: “I’ve never disrespected him (Warne). I don’t appreciate the way that he continues to talk about me.” Samuels is obviously deeply hurt. So why no palliative words for Samuels amid sympathies for Stokes? They were both hurt and bruised. An injury is felt whether you are on the winning team or losing one. Victory is not a painkiller.
Now what did the article say about the captains. Here we go: “Morgan himself was surprisingly calm…” Which losing captain, have you ever seen jumping up? So there you go, contrasts are obviously discriminatory, rooted in … I don’t know.
Morgan said his team was “terrible” with the bat but he could not fault anything with the ball´”.
What did they pick out for Sammy, the West Indies captain, ageism talk. Many of his players are, “way beyond the wrong side of 30” …
Even the Telegraph’s more analytical story had its ‘jerk-behaviour elements’ , for example it said; “If this is to be the new direction of West Indies cricket – hired guns, blasting their way round the 20-over circuit – then it will bring some compensation for their loss of influence in the Test arena.” Hired guns! Is Carlos Brathwaite a West Indian player? Why an expression that suggest he’s an extra-regional recruit brought in for this fixture?
That comment was awful spoiling an article whose general tenor wasn’t and ended by announcing that England was “destroyed by brilliance: a quality to which they aspire.”
I had a few days in journalism, so I always peep behind words for true meaning and I know that if the tables were flipped, our professional writers and talkers would have produced volumes of blame articles no verbal antidotes for the sore-muscled players who tried their best.
Opinions would either coincide with or mimic those from the other side. Same result. I firmly believe that our stance boosts the confidence of those who bad-talk us not only about the game per se but talk that attack our inner psyche.
After Gayle’s recent issue, he got a lot of verbal licks here in the CARICOM region, and rightly so, but I am still listening for the onslaught on those who voice the ‘no brain’ comment and other remarks that toed or slid over the line of racial prejudice and colonial hang-overs.